Author: Berean Baptist

          Today’s message concludes Mark 7, a chapter in which Mark carefully crafts a synopsis of Jesus’ teachings and demonstrations of the moral condition of all people. The summation is the 21^st through the 23rd verses: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” Jesus used the familiar term “heart” as the moral repository of all people. In His description was not one word of commendation for the goodness of anyone but rather the identity of a holding place for evil that may at any time erupt into the performance of immoral acts. This is one of many scriptures that signify the sinful potential of every person.

          The scripture I chose for our congregational reading is Ephesians 2 which most remember for verses 8-10. These verses tell us our salvation is by grace through faith and not by any good works we may do. Most will eagerly quote these verses without explanation of the reason they must be true. The first part of the chapter paints the dismal prospects of our moral condition. We are dead in trespasses and sins and under the control of the prince and power of the air. This power is Satan who aggravates and stirs up our evil hearts to keep us bound in its corruption. We are without desire or ability to remedy this condition. Additionally, scriptures spoken by Jesus and others say that Satan blinds us to the light of the gospel. He means Satan obscures our spiritual understanding leaving us unable to decipher the cause and the truth of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins. This results in children who are not destined for eternal happiness but for the eternal destruction of hell.

          For the salvation of any person, a power greater than Satan must overcome the sinner’s natural blindness and affect a change of his sinful disposition. This power is not in us nor is there any ability to do better or to see beyond the darkness of the back of our eyelids. God must do this for us which is the reason Paul said grace, faith, and salvation are gifts of God. There is no merit in our work because no good works proceed from a corrupt heart. Thus, Jesus’ teaching of the heart’s terrible condition in Mark 7 concurs with Ephesians 2. With more space to fortify the argument for man’s total depravity and total inability, I could mention Jeremiah’s assessment of the deceitfulness and desperate wickedness of the heart, or I could include the scripture in Job: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.” Anywhere we turn in scripture, we vainly search for anything about the good moral nature of anyone without Jesus.

          It is the gross misunderstanding of this deplorable condition that leads to a more favorable reinterpretation of the method of regenerating the totally depraved. The famous, or should I say the infamous, Robert Schuler, redefined original sin as the lack of self-esteem. His redefinition affects the meaning of “born again” which he also needed to redefine. He wrote, “To be born again means that we must change from a negative to a positive self-image—from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust.” As Bereans, search the scriptures carefully. Do you see Jesus speaking to anyone about changing from a negative self-image to a positive one? Jesus supplied the correct definition of our moral condition. To be born again is not to change our self-esteem. It is to esteem Christ as our righteousness and ourselves as our hopelessness. Why are we not a part of the solution? It ensures we do not boast, and God receives all the glory.

                                                  Pastor V. Mark Smith

         Have you wondered how and why I chose the subjects for bulletin articles? Often, they tie into the sermon for the day and may help explain details I do not have time for in the sermon. At other times, the subjects seem random and are nothing near to the sermon subject or any event that currently affects us. These articles are the ones I struggle with the most.

         The prompt for today’s subject was our sermon text—or should I say two words in the text caused me to think. These two words are the names of Gentile cities which defined the general area where Jesus visited in Mark 7. Both are north of Israel in present day Lebanon. They are seaports on the Mediterranean Sea which entertained visitors from all parts of the Middle Eastern world. Each were wicked cities with a sordid past in their relationship with Israel. Interestingly, sailors from almost anywhere represent some of the worst of human depravity. At least this is their reputation and not without convincing evidence. Tyre and Sidon boasted of their sea power, and this of course relied on these same notoriously wicked sailors.

         These two cities were off-limits to the proud self-righteous scribes and Pharisees and were neither an obvious choice for Jesus to visit. This reputational prejudice is clear in our sermon text today as Jesus referred to the citizens of these cities as “dogs.” This was not an uncommon moniker as the Syrophoenician woman did not bristle at Jesus’ use of it.

         What brings me to the mention of Tyre and Sidon? It is a rather obscure connection. You will recognize the name of a former resident of Sidon. Her name was Jezebel who married King Ahab of Israel during the time of Elijah. She was the daughter of the Sidonian king and in today’s terms we would call her an influencer. She influenced Ahab in the worship of the heathen god Baal, who was perhaps the most prevalently notorious god of many heathen nations. This is a strange way to describe this false god as he was truly nothing. He was a god of the imagination without power to help or hurt anyone. As Paul would later say, an idol is a dumb thing and is nothing. And yet, idol worship ruled not only all the peoples of Canaan but all the other nations as well. Israel was the loner—the standout without an image to worship.

         Returning to our thoughts of Jezebel, she claims the top post, first place among wicked women. Throughout all the history of Israel, she was infamous enough for Jesus to name her in the Revelation one thousand years after her notorious life. Anyone with only a smidgen of religious background knows the name, and many others recognize her as a historical figure and a substitute description for the character of treacherous women.

         I mention Jezebel today because of the Sidonian connection to our story and the constant reminder of how womanhood has degenerated. The idols of old were wood and stone and had no power or thoughts of any kind. The imaginations of their worshippers energized them. Make no mistake, these idols are not gone from the imagination. The middleman, so-to-speak, rationally disappeared. The stone idol is gone with false worship commandeered by self, the replacement human idol. The result is the same—the rejection of Christ and the elevation of human reasoning.

         Three thousand years ago, it was child sacrifice to appease false gods (Baal, Chemosh, Ashtoreth, et. al.). Today it is child sacrifice to appease the selfish god of inconvenience. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The need of the Syrophoenician woman is the same as women need today. What do women need? Jesus Christ and the salvation of their souls is primary. Secondly, men with more backbone who act like men.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

         This week, our study in the Gospel of Mark continues with Jesus’ answer to the scribes’ and Pharisees’ inquiry concerning His and His disciples’ habit of ignoring the opinions of the revered elders of Israel. Jesus never disobeyed any of God’s commands, but He was not averse to disobeying any and every command meant to obfuscate God’s law.

         Because of Jesus intense popularity, He posed a threat to the authority of these elders and their monopoly on the spiritual control of daily life in Galilee and Judea. It was not unusual to see violations of their customs as if every person cared what the spiritual leaders in Israel thought. Just as there is a segment of our population (a rather large one) that does not care for religion, the same types to a lesser degree lived in Israel. Matthew was such a Jew who before following Jesus cared nothing for the rules and regulations imposed by the sanctimonious religious police force. Men like Matthew were not much of a threat to the system because they had influence only with friends and a few other rogues like them. Jesus was more like a nuclear threat with His supernatural abilities and the attention of nearly everyone from the poor to Roman government officials. His wisdom in how to answer puzzling questions coupled with superior understanding of the scriptures, enabled Him to thoroughly refute and humiliate these supposed experts in Jewish law.

         The question on this occasion pertained to the custom of washing hands before eating. As I explained in an earlier message, their concern was not good sanitation habits, but rather sanctification by their perfect obedience to outward forms of religion. The Jews’ entire religious system centered on rigid self-righteousness that they believed gave them access to the inheritance of God. If this means was truly the way to reach God, His holiness is nothing higher than the level of mortal men. A god reached by self-effort is not worth the effort to make the connection. We are no better off than if we worshipped each other.

         Though this is true and clearly defies the God of scripture, still it is the default position of most people who say they are Christians. The idol artist who makes his god of wood or stone and carries his idol to wherever he needs it, is far more powerful than his creation who does not speak, hear, perceive, act, or do anything the idol’s creator can do.

         The Jews in Jesus’ time prided themselves in the rejection of heathen idols. Since the end of the divided kingdom five hundred years before the New Testament era, Israel was under foreign occupation, a consequence of their forefathers’ disobedience to the warnings of the prophets. To restore Israel to God’s favor, they long ago laid their idols aside and resumed their observance of the ceremonial laws. However, for every form resumed, there was a corresponding perversion. For example, the priests at the temple made sacrifices as the law commanded, but they also owned the sacrificial animals which they sold to the people at exorbitant prices. Having the authority to inspect and refuse any animals not sold by them, they controlled the market amassing great wealth in the process.

         Now, the purpose of our brief foray into this history comes to its conclusion. Jesus’ unraveling any of the fabricated laws of the elders had the potential of destroying the wicked schemes that made these religious charlatans rich. Thus, there is a delegation sent to Galilee to intervene before Jesus did irreparable harm. As we all know now, crucifixion was their final solution. They killed the man, but His resurrection ensured He will never cease to plague manmade religion. If this religion is yours, when you wash your hands, do not forget to wash your idol too.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

         Today’s message begins the seventh chapter of Mark and another confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem. In our text, Jesus was still in Galilee but apparently, He proved too much for the local scribes, Pharisees, and rabbis to contend with. Since Jesus’ popularity extended across the entire land of Israel, everyone was aware of His activities and defiance of their customs and laws. It is important for us to note Jesus never opposed God’s laws but most certainly resisted the gross misinterpretations of it by these self-righteous leaders.

As I surveyed our text, I thought of the cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. You have heard me speak of cardinal doctrines and I may announce different doctrines as cardinal doctrines. If I settle on one, I must say in the context today, it is the doctrine of justification by faith. The battle over law and gospel between Jesus and these people was the method by which God accounts us just and free from the condemnation of the law. One of the clearest, easiest definitions that underlines the various aspects of justification is this quote from a systematic theology: “Justification is that instantaneous, everlasting, gracious, free, judicial act of God, whereby, on account of the merit of Christ’s blood and righteousness, a repentant, believing sinner is freed from the penalty of the law, restored to God’s favor, and considered as possessing the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ; by virtue of all of which he receives adoption as a son.”

         Most would call this the Reformed perspective of justification linking it to the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was far too late to be the source of this doctrine. This is Jesus’ doctrine, His disciples’ doctrine, Paul’s doctrine, and the doctrine of the true New Testament church. Comparing this definition to Mark 7 and this encounter with the Jews, we can see there is no room to fit the Jewish interpretation of justification. And what the Jews believed was not unique to them. It is the natural default interpretation of all other faiths contrary to the faith of Christ. To receive justification from God, requires human effort, good works, trying to be a good person, following the rules, and on it goes. For many, simply dying is enough to account oneself right with God. The fundamental difference is reliance on self-generated righteousness not the righteousness of Christ.

         Paul often contended with the same thinking of Jewish leaders after Christ called him to the ministry. There were many called Judaizers who followed him to Gentile preaching posts with attempts to destroy the faith by restoring at least some of the old Jewish traditions. Though it seemed a compromise might be possible, Paul steadfastly rejected their attempts knowing that any compromise on justification renders Christianity, the cross, and Jesus Himself null and void. He termed the Jews doctrine another gospel, a perverted gospel, an accursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

         The Protestant Reformation accentuated the differences between Roman Catholic teachings of justification and the correct scriptural presentation at a time when Catholicism persecuted true believers and distorted the gospel of Christ. The same sham gospel taught by Roman Catholics in the 16^th century still goes on today. It is fraught with more compromises as Catholicism learned to embrace the heresies of all religions to make them comfortable if they would come under the umbrella of their universal church.

         The cardinal doctrine of justification is still the barrier between Christ, the Jews, Roman Catholics, and all the rest who do not accept the correct definition. If there had been a sign of Roman Catholicism in the days of Jesus, He would say to them, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”

Pastor V. Mark Smith

         Today, our journey through Mark brings us to more of Jesus’ healing miracles. Our scripture does not concentrate on a specific individual who received healing but rather an entire area of the Galilean region that experienced Jesus’ powerful and unique ministry. These were people who had never seen Jesus, although news of His miracles in Capernaum, Nazareth, and even from the southern region of Judea reached them bringing hope that someday He would make His way to them. The news that filtered into their area was that a man helped people in ways no one had ever seen. They heard that He asked nothing in return and that merely touching Him or Him touching them was enough to give them thorough and lasting wholeness. It did not matter the defect or disease; Jesus managed all cases. It is interesting that just the slightest touch would do. No need to hug Him, to embrace Him, or to have Him do the same, but only to touch the hem of His clothing.

         My great interest in this type of healing is not so much the New Testament form, but the Old Testament implications. The border of His garment was the target area which had special significance in God’s methods of dealing with His people. I hope our church is more familiar with this part of Jesus’ clothing because you have been with me through extended studies of the Old Testament tabernacle worship.

         God gave Israel a plan for worship when He was with Moses on Mount Sinai. We usually think of this event as the time and location for Israel’s reception of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, it was, but God included far more. He gave an entire judicial system of laws and a mandate for worshipping the Holy God which distinguished Israel from all other nations. The Ten Commandments were the foundation of moral law and built upon these commandments were laws for religious ceremonies as well as dietary laws for health and well-being. These laws sanctified Israel and set them apart from other nations. Food, clothing, health, sacrifice, and behavior—all that His people needed—God gave.

         This religious system was complicated and rich in symbolism. We spent months exploring and learning the meaning of these symbols and applying them to New Testament truths. Our text today reminds us of their clothing. Mentioning the border of Jesus’ garment is not incidental. There are several Old Testament passages to examine, one of which is the high priest’s clothing. I hope you remember the significance of the bells on the fringe of his robe that constantly rang as he performed his duties on the Day of Atonement. I do not have time and space to discuss it today, but how enlightening would it be to show Christ’s high priestly intercession through it?

         I will take you rather to Numbers 15:37-41. I feel a sermon coming on and I regret not making this thought the most important part of today’s sermon presentation. As briefly as I can explain, God commanded each Israelite to make their clothing with a ribband of blue around the fringe. The purpose was to use it as a daily reminder of God’s commandments. The false worship of Canaan’s idols would tempt them, and this clothing was to remind them of the true God they were to obey.

         There are multiple lessons to learn from this in relation to our story in Mark. I leave you with this. God built our salvation on obedience to His law. We are incapable of keeping these laws to God’s satisfaction. As Jesus was the only hope the people in Gennesaret had for healing, so our only hope of spiritual healing is the perfection of the law fulfilled in Jesus Christ. By faith, we touch His ribbon of blue and partake in the satisfaction He made to God by perfectly fulfilling God’s commandments. Through the touch of faith, Christ’s perfect obedience becomes ours and God counts us as compliant. Christ satisfied God’s justice for us. Gennesaret was helpless without the touch, and so are you.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Last week while contemplating the subject of today’s article, I came across the title of another’s article that seemed worthy of stopping to read. The title was, “Is Paedocommunion Biblical?” You may not recognize this word and it is certain you will not see it except in a theological context. You may be familiar with the term paedobaptism but far less common is to see paedocommunion. Both terms relate to the participation of children in the life of the church. The more common term for paedobaptism is infant baptism, while paedocommunion refers to the inclusion of children baptized as infants in the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

You are already much aware that we do not believe paedobaptism is biblical. Baptism is a church ordinance enacted only upon a credible, volitional profession of faith. Infants are incapable of this, although older children who have come to understanding of repentance and faith and have professed Christ may receive baptism. Since the church agreed to their baptism and admitted them into the membership of the church, they are eligible for communion.

I remember when I first became pastor of Berean, there were practices concerning baptism and communion that I believe needed correction. The first was the participation of non-members. I have said multiple times we believe in restricted communion. The Lord’s Supper should be observed only by the membership of each individual local church. We do not question the salvation of any other Christians as this practice is not a salvation issue. Membership is the qualifier.

The other problem was the participation of children without profession of faith and baptism. Member parents would pass the communion trays down their row and would allow their young children to take from the trays and if they were too young to manage the task themselves, their parents would reach in and hold the elements for them. These would be the circumstances for us to say we do not practice paedocommunion!

Who, then, uses this term and finds it necessary to argue for or against it? It would be those churches that practice infant baptism and believe the baptized infants of adult believers are members of the covenant community (their terms) and are thus members of the visible church. If you understand our doctrine, you know we do not use the term visible to distinguish the local church from the non-existent invisible church (a subject for another day). This is the rub for churches practicing infant baptism. How do you exclude from communion those you have admitted into the covenant of the church? I am thankful we need not concern ourselves with arguments over this issue since anchoring the use of both terms is baptism. If the baptism is not valid, certainly participation in communion is invalid. The reformed churches and others who practice infant baptism very well understand the distinctions Baptists make concerning this. Our practice of excluding them from our communion should not offend them since their exclusion comes from logical deduction. Both we and they agree the unbaptized are not eligible for communion.

Controversies concerning the Supper spread across the wide spectrum of Christianity. The practice of restricted communion has no shortage of detractors, although they may not find fault in any other aspect of our observance. There are arguments about the presence of Christ in the elements, whether the Supper is a sacrament or a memorial, and is communion a means of grace. If so, how so? We do not advocate for the recognition of every group as true churches of Jesus Christ. What they do and how they agree or disagree on the Supper is of no consequence to us if they are not under the headship of Christ. Paedobaptism and paedocommunion are indicators of serious theological illness. The presence of those doctrines in a church means we are not dealing with valid churches.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

On this Sunday morning, God’s people across the world gather to focus their attention on the most important event in world history. Only days ago, most Christians’ thoughts were on the crucifixion. Which of these, the cross or the resurrection, is the most significant? This is not necessarily a point of debate since each is indispensable in the salvation of sinners. There are those who wear a crucifix almost daily which seems to me their focus is a dead man hanging on a cross. There is no symbolism of God in their depiction. It would be more difficult to devise a trinket that expresses the resurrection since an empty grave does not seem to be suitable for jewelry. However, the empty tomb is our symbol that Jesus Christ was both man and God. Joseph carried a dead, lifeless human body and placed it in a tomb and three days later it came back to life by its own power. The power of the resurrection is the ultimate symbol that Jesus is God.

These are facts presented in the Holy Scriptures and leaned on by the apostles as their incentive to risk their lives and give their lives for a man who died whom they believed to be alive. When Felix stated Paul’s disposition to Herod Agrippa, he described the controversy by saying Paul had many accusers but their accusations were not of the sort he anticipated: “Against whom [Paul] when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” (Acts 25:18-19). Throughout Paul’s ministry in both missionary work in Acts and in his epistles, he affirms belief in the resurrection as a primary reason for our justification. The proof that the death of the cross was propitiatory is that God raised Christ from the dead.

In his explanation of the gospel and his emphasis on the necessity of the resurrection for it, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 that Christ’s death was for our sins. In other words, His death was a substitution for ours. He follows this with the assertion that He was buried and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures. Without the resurrection, Christ did not fulfill the scriptures and thus the promises of God through Christ’s death are meaningless.

An interesting aspect of Paul’s claim that Christ arose according to the scriptures is what many consider a futile attempt to find any Old Testament proof of this promise. As one author wrote, and I paraphrase, they do not know what to look for as proof. The proof is the promise made to Abraham that God gives life from the dead. Paul leans into this in Romans 4:16-25. The promise was concrete in Abraham’s experience as he and Sarah had a child in the deadness of his and Sarah’s bodies. Abraham held on to this promise later when he would try to sacrifice Isaac. He believed God would raise him from the dead.

The question for us to consider today is whether the resurrection of Christ is our firm undergirding of faith. Is our faith built on the same foundation as the apostles? The resurrection drove them; it motivated them as it provided their confidence in God. I believe it does much less for us if we casually approach Resurrection Sunday. We are soft on such important principles. I doubt most Christians think any more of this day than a time for bright clothing and an obligatory church day. What does it mean to you? Is all your hope dependent on it? To properly understand the day, it must!

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Every Sunday morning, the Berean Baptist services begin in a familiar repetitive way. We start with the Call to Worship which is a scripture reading that usually corresponds to the theme of the first congregational song. Next is Bro. John Bunn’s greeting— “Good morning, Bereans!” John addresses two principles with this greeting. We are Bereans because the name of our church is Berean, and we are Bereans because we love to study the Bible to learn the truths of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We take our name from the believers in Acts 17:11 who readily received the word and regularly researched the word. It is always a pleasure to preach to those who are interested in the scriptures and who faithfully take their Bibles and follow as we read and study.

Each of the Bereans here on Sunday morning attend church because of the common bond we have in Christ. Some attend who are here for curiosity and want to learn more about us and what this church believes. But by and large, most are well acquainted with each other, and the faithful core is always here eager to hear God speak through His word and worship Him in hymns, prayer, and preaching.

When I think of the core of the church, I equate this with their faithful attendance, faithful support, and faithful service. Some meet one or two of these areas—attendance and support—while we can name far fewer as servants of the church. As numbers dwindle, we must have more of our membership active in all three areas. In a discussion a few weeks ago, I remarked that those who are present for our afternoon class are members who enter the room, take their seats, and open their Bibles with well-worn pages covered with markings, underlines, and notes. I know their adventures in the Bible are frequent and not limited to the information they hear from me. They are Bible students throughout the week researching what I say on Sunday mornings and reading for themselves to learn the scriptures and achieve better knowledge of them.

As I survey this group on Sunday afternoons and see their heavily used Bibles, I recognize they are mostly the people who are the servants of the church. I am not sure who among them are monetary supporters other than the ones I casually see as I glance while leaving the pulpit for the offering. I have little doubt all of them give which only John Bunn our treasurer and Taber Jarrell our financial secretary can confirm.

My primary purpose in this article is to explain what I know regular Bible reading and study will do. The word convicts the heart and tells us what kind of Christians we should be. It is difficult to be doers of the word as James commanded without doing anything. The word makes well rounded Christians. They attend worship and study sessions. Our core is here, and it is our main support. The scriptures prompt our core to more prayer and study, and thus better acquaintance with word and the God of the word.

I believe each member should ask themselves, “Am I a part of the core of the Berean Baptist Church? If I am not, why am I not?” Which is better—a partially devoted Christian or one who surrenders all for Christ?

I know my definitions cannot be strictly exclusive. I also know each believer can evaluate what they read here and apply accordingly. Where do you stand? Does the Lord agree with your assessment?

Pastor V. Mark Smith

In January of last year, we were early into our study of Mark’s gospel when we had opportunity to examine the ministry of John the Baptist. John appears early in all four gospel accounts because of his baptism ministry. Before Jesus began His public teaching, it was necessary for Him to inaugurate His ministry with the New Testament right of the church which is baptism in water. Of course, there was no church when John started baptizing, but it appears the apostles chosen as foundational building blocks of the church were all baptized by John. Before choosing Judas’ replacement in Acts 1, Peter said the new apostle must be qualified in this respect—he must have accompanied the ministry of Jesus since the baptism of John. The New Testament stressed John’s baptism as well as the Old Testament in mentioning how John would prepare Israel for the coming Messiah.

Although appearing only in the New Testament, Jesus named John as the last Old Testament prophet. Apparently, God saved the best of those types of prophets until last. Jesus said there was no greater man born of women than John the Baptist. It is a superlative statement especially since Jesus Himself was born of a woman. I will leave you to research and decide on His meaning.

The last we saw of John in our study was in chapter 2 when the Pharisees complained that he and his disciples fasted when Jesus and His did not. It was a convenient comparison for them as they tried to drive a wedge between Jesus and John while knowing the people considered John to be a prophet. The Pharisees had no use for John except as they could use him against Jesus. It is hardly imaginable they favored John when he called them vipers and called them to repentance from their sins. It was not a good look for John to call them self-righteous sinners. It was also useless for them to try to exalt John above Jesus. He recognized Jesus’ authority and said he was not worthy to untie the sandals on Jesus’ feet. Jesus applauded John for his strong stand on the truth of God’s word, an immovable position since prison did not deter him from outing Herod and his wife for their immorality.

The first messages on John last year were The Baptist Bulldozer and The Baptist’s Baptism. We conclude the saga of John the Baptist today with The Baptist Beheaded. John met an ignominious end as Herod treated him as an enemy of the people. He certainly was Herod’s enemy—at least an enemy of his sin. He called him to repentance not only because his responsibility was to rule in righteousness, but also because his soul depended on it.

Herod never repented of his sin and later Caesar exiled him and stripped away much of his authority. A man who dined fabulously in a palace and could speak a word to dispel his enemies now burns in the flames of an eternal hell. Such is often the end of the world’s mightiest men. John’s legacy was that of a nomad traversing the desert in rough camel hair clothing and dining on grasshoppers. And yet, we know him better than Herod because of His trust in the Messiah and his faithful obedience to truth. John’s life teaches us not to be afraid of what people can do to us. Service to Christ yields honor at the proper time.

Pastor V. Mark Smith